Debate on Lord Storey’s Private Member’s Bill highlights the ingrained attitude of politicians from all parties who believe no parent can be trusted to provide the best for their children.
What’s been said?
Lord Storey reminded Peers attending the Second Reading of his Home School Education Registration and Support Bill [transcript | video] on Friday 15 November that there had already been two previous Private Members’ Bills on home education – one Labour (Lord Soley’s) and one Conservative. Readers are unlikely to share his sentiment that “Both, sadly, ran out of parliamentary time.” The Noble Lord appears to have forgotten that ex-MP, Flick Drummond actually introduced two separate Private Member’s Bills in May 2023 and March 2024 and more recently, Paul Homes MP, also a Conservative, introduced his Children Not in School (Registers, Support and Orders) PMB on 21 October. The very first attempt occurred in 2009, in fact not as a PMB, but as part of Labour’s Children’s, Schools and Families Bill.
The sponsor of the current attempt in the House of Lord is himself a Liberal Democrat. Storey’s opening words articulate many parliamentarians’ reasoning for the necessity of registers:
“The Bill will fix the non-existent oversight of this area of education and ensure that authorities have accurate records of how many children are educated at home, where they are and that educational requirements are being met.” [Emphasis added in all cases]
Storey told Peers he had received numerous expressions of either concern or support for his Bill, and had sought to reflect these by making sure it was both “thoughtful and measured, so as to ensure that respect for home educators is maintained.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie expressed similar sentiments about there being “no accurate figures for how many children in England are not in mainstream education,” adding:
“For the status and safety of children to be allocated to a category marked ‘Don’t know’ by government is totally unacceptable. Child protection is too important an issue for that to be the case, but under existing legislation it is.”
Why does it matter?
In many ways the first part of this debate introduces very little new material. The majority of Peers’ input was essentially a recycling of old concerns and arguments.
And of course it will all become irrelevant in the not too distant future, as Storey himself acknowledged, for when the Children’s Wellbeing Bill materialises with the promised legislation about CNiS registers, then his Bill will be proved surplus to requirements.
That said, the debate still makes a worthwhile listen for those who seek to glean more of the thinking that convinces politicians that registers are essential. Also, the Minister’s concluding words shed further light on the Government’s future intentions.
Some Peers had clearly heard and taken on board the views of parents. The Lord Bishop of Hereford was well aware of anti-register sentiments amongst some home educators. He also spoke of “disquiet about the content of the proposed register… which is seen as an example of state overreach.”
Lord Lucas advocated approaching home education “with both humility and respect,” giving credit to the commitment of many HE parents, whilst recognising existing failings within the state system. In his view, any register should include “all children in the country, not just home-educated children” because there are “some dark corners of state education that are really not well enough documented.” His catch-all alternative, however, connects rather too neatly with one of the Government’s other promises, that they will introduce a Single Unique Identifier for every child, which will be “shared across services.”
Baroness Whittaker favoured a somewhat simplistic but commonly held view that making it easier for “all children to attend proper registered schools and thrive there,” would be the best solution.
Baroness Burt put into words two factors often viewed as conflicting when she stated: “Concern about family privacy should never be allowed to undermine the best interests of the child.” The mindset held by some which sets aside any recognition that the right to a private family life is very much in “the best interests” of the majority of young people is staggering. In reality their view is that without state oversight, and ultimately a prescribed education, children will suffer.
Taking a moment to think further about this, many parents know that time and again states demonstrate that they are unable to act in the best interests of a significant percentage of children, in both the education and the care systems. For example, in recent years the phrase “Care Experienced Individual/Child” has been adopted to describe anyone who is or has been a “looked after child” for any length of time. In 2023, the Children’s Commissioner for England conducted a survey asking young people “Should ‘care experience’ be given protection in law?” If being in the care of the state is so traumatic for so many children that they are being considered as potentially in need of additional protection as adults, why do politicians continually cast doubt on the capabilities of parents? Could it be more that they are ideologically predisposed to such a belief, rather than because they have observed a real need in daily life?
Concluding the debate on behalf of the Official Opposition, Baroness Barran reiterated her familiar “three main groups of children who are educated at home” categories, and showed that she too was aware of both pros and cons regarding state registration of HE children.
“Thus huge care will be needed when the Government bring forward their children and well-being Bill [sic] – which I understand will include measures to create a register of home-schooled children – to ensure that the implementation of these measures is done with a focus on identifying those genuinely at risk or in need of support and does not intrude on the private life of families who are doing the best for their children.”
She could do no other than wish Storey’s Bill well, but clearly her preference and expectation was that the matter would “re-emerge as part of the Government’s legislative calendar,”giving her the perfect lead-in to ask the Minister when the CWB would have its First Reading.
For the Government, Baroness Smith of Malvern provided more insights than one might have expected. She described the aims of Storey’s Bill as “admirable and important.” She confirmed the Government’s commitment to “introduce proposals in the children’s well-being Bill that would require every local authority in England to keep children not in school registers,” adding that she was not in a position to say exactly when this would be introduced, but since it was included in this year’s King’s Speech, “it will be within this parliamentary Session.”
She showed some awareness of the opposing positions about family privacy vs state involvement, but was fully persuaded that registers are an absolute necessity given increasing HE numbers.
Points of particular interest to HE parents are:
- Her reference to the eight components in the EHE Guidance which LAs should consider when “determining whether a child is receiving a suitable education.”
- Her assertion that a LA “may request different types of evidence to help demonstrate that education provision is suitable. That could include samples of work, a meeting with the child, or a visit to the home.”
- Her comment about Storey’s Bill not including “a consequence if parents do not fulfil their legal duty,” which led on to her stating, “We think it is vital that local authorities can take action if parents attempt to evade registration – actions such as initiating the school attendance order process.”
Smith acknowledged the need for improved SEND and mental health provision. She spoke of improving safeguarding in out of school settings, and encouraging Ofsted’s work of prosecuting illegal schools.
She handled the culture clash for religious schools by straddling both arguments – “Parents could continue to instil in their children religious and cultural values, provided that the education being received is suitable.” This of course raises the question of whose responsibility it is to determine what is a suitable education for an individual child. Is it their parents or the State? It has long been established in British law that this is first and foremost the parents’ responsibility.
And finally, Smith made it abundantly clear that a ‘proper Bill’ rather than a PMB was the Government’s preferred means of legislating about registers:
“In conclusion, while we wholeheartedly support the intention behind the Bill, I do not believe that it is the most effective way of bringing compulsory children not in school registers into being. That is why I must express reservations on the contents of the Bill. This Government already intend to legislate for children not in school registers through the children’s well-being Bill [sic]. We are committed to ensuring that these measures are as robust as possible, to minimise the risk of children slipping under the radar.” [Emphasis added]
What can I do?
Read or watch as much of the debate as you can. Note particularly the new information conveyed in Baroness Smith’s summing up for the Government.
Note too Storey’s concluding words, indicating that he is of the same mind as Lucas that it’s not just about registering home-educated children – “it is about registering children right across the educational spectrum.”
If enacted in this way in the CWB, this of course would also affect parents of schooled children, so get talking about this in your local contexts. All parents need to wake up to what’s being proposed.
No matter what party your MP is from, it is important that you reach out to them as soon as possible. Don’t wait for the Bill to be published. If you are concerned about becoming ‘known’ to your LA, you will find this guide to MPs and confidentiality helpful.
Unless these proposals are stopped, you will find it much harder to protect your children from the long arm of an increasingly intrusive State!